Perhaps with respect to what is true. I have two legs, you have two legs; that does not make me you, nor the same as you, except in that regard. — tim wood

It doesn't work like that. All that's true of X must also be true of Y and only then is 2. the identity of indiscernibles applies.

The rest of what you wrote is gobbledygook. Sorry.

First you say that knowledge of any language isn't important, then go on to explain how some entity knows Chinese or not.

Seems like we need to know how the "mechanical computer-like symbol manipulation system that spits out a response in Chinese" learned how to do just that. — Harry Hindu

I'm no linguist but I believe there are syntactic rules that govern all languages - these are computable i.e. can be reduced to an algorithm.

Semantics is, forgive my ignorance here, of two types: 1. Concrete and 2. Abstract. By concrete meanings I refer to ostensive definitions which is basically an exercise in matching words with objects. Abstract meanings are extracted patterns from, among other things, concrete meanings. Computers are fully capable of both assigning names to objects and pattern recognition.

All in all, computers are capable of both syntactical and semantic aspects of language. What this means is that language can be reduced to computation. If one wants to make the case that consciousness is something special then you can't do it using language.

Quantifying or qualifying life makes no difference to death - regardless of how long or well one lives, we ALL die.

It certainly appears to those of us still living that a longer or a higher quality of life is somehow better than a short, painful one. But in death, it makes no difference either way.

You can argue all you want from the perspective of life, but death really does have the same (infinite) quality for everyone who is dead. — Possibility

I've been relying on the wisdom of the crowd all along. It's no secret that people have the notion of premature death or untimely death. Some of us, possibly most of us, believe that there are times when it's reasonable to say that death has been, well, unfair - either people met their end too early or they were murdered or got into a fatal accident, so and so forth.

Are you saying this is wrong? If yes, why?

it is three people involved in sexual relations. — creativesoul

This is a concept.

The essence of free will is to be out of the causal web and still be in it - to wish not to be an effect and yet be a cause. Free will is defined thus: to be able to make choices (we want to be causes) without these choices being themselves out of our control (we don't want to be effects). Is this possible or should I say reasonable?

There are two aspects to any individual. The physical body and the mind and causality seems to operate differently for them.

The body is affected by, well, physical stuff and there's no way we can transcend physical laws of nature - if you jump off the third floor of a building you will get hurt.

Although it's true that ideas are a matter of preferences - our belief systems adapt to our mindset - there are many times our mindset adapts to beliefs. Rationality is the primary agent that brings this about. Yet, rationality isn't in the business of offering us choices - it demands allegiance to beliefs that have been demonstrated true or else prepare to live a life of pain.

Yet, it can't be denied that not matter what reason dictates, we still can choose what to believe and what not to believe. Reminds me of someone who once said, paraphrasing, "truth is something that doesn't go away even when you choose not to believe it". Whatever truth may be, the sentence let the cat out of the bag - we're free to choose our beliefs no matter what logic or reason says.

As you can see, two forces are at play here. On one side of the ring are our preferences that have the power to influence our minds and on the other side of the ring is rationality that can exert an opposing influence. It boils down to this then: we're prisoners of our preferences but rationality is our get out of jail card but we've enough freedom to defy rationality. It's like being in a cage of our preferences, in possession of the key to the cage, rationality, and being completely free whether to use the key or not.

What's your opinion on this?

A love triangle is not a concept — creativesoul

What is it then?

I've already asked them to do that as well as define understanding, but they only seem willing to keep asserting their unfound notions.

They also ignore the fact that the man in the room still understands the language the instructions are written in and how the man learned THAT language, and then they're failure to define understanding and consciousness, this thread is just a bunch of smoke and mirrors. Interesting how you can learn another language using your language, hmmm? — Harry Hindu

I think the person in the Chinese Room, his knowledge of language, any language for that matter, isn't important. If I recall correctly, he doesn't know Chinese at all. All that this person represents is some mechanical computer-like symbol manipulation system that spits out a response in Chinese to a Chinese interlocutor and that's done so well that it appears the Chinese Room understands Chinese.

Perhaps this isn't the the right moment to bring this up but the issue of Leibniz's identity of indiscernibles seems germane. The Chinese Room is indistinguishable from a Chinese person - they're indiscernible - but does that mean they're identical in that the Chinese Room is ontologically a Chinese person? The issue of Nagel's and others' idea of an inner life as part of consciousness crops up.

Never said it was, nor would I. I direct you back to the first reply I offered you. Love triangle is a deviation of the mathematical concept. The latter is necessary for the former. The former is existentially dependent upon the latter.

Think oil and plastic. The relationship(existential dependency) is very similar to triangle and love triangle. — creativesoul

Well, we would need some real people to decide the matter. Are there/were there people who know/knew what love triangles are before the advent of mathematics and geometry? Before you answer this question don't forget that polygamy was a more common form of sexual relationship than monogamy in the animal and the plant worlds. Mathematics is relatively a very recent development. In other words, the concept of love triangles precedes the concept of triangles - our ancestor hominids probably were neck deep in not one but many love triangles ergo, fully in the know about love triangles before Euclid came up with a formal definition of triangles. What do you make of that?

I've nothing further to say about this... — creativesoul

Sorry to hear that but it actually doesn't prove Wittgenstein right - that people use words without knowing their definitions. "Love Triangle" is a single semantic unit and although it's made up of two words that have some connection to the concept of a three-way love affair, the precise mathematical concept of a triangle isn't an essential part of the juicy tale of love triangles.

There are other phrases like this e.g. "feather weight". The word "feather" here doesn't mean that a feather is involved in the meaning; only the lightness of feathers is incoporated into the meaning of feather weight. The same goes for love triangles - the threeness of triangles is all that's co-opted into the meaning of love triangles.

In any case, the definition of words or phrases must be known before they can be used properly.

You've lost me here. I see it there as well. Again, on the left, "triangle" is the third term in the definition.

What are you looking at?

"Triangle" is in every one of those definitions! — creativesoul

Let me be specific, triangle is not in the definiens

Cambridge.Org

Look on the left side at the second word. There it is! Hence, my reply. — creativesoul

A "love triangle" picks out three people involved in sexual relations — creativesoul

A love triangle (also called a romantic love triangle or a romance triangle or an eternal triangle) is usually a romantic relationship involving three or more people — Wikipedia

No triangle in the definition.

Yes, I believe the superorganism that would be the Chinese room will pass the Turing test. If it is possible to construct then it would be a true AI. — debd

At this point I'd like you to consider the nature of consciousness, specifically the sense of awareness, particularly self-awareness. The consciousness we're all familiar with comes with the awareness of the self, recognition of one's own being and existence, which unfortunately can't be put into words as far as I'm concerned. It's quite clear that the Chinese Room is, from the way it operates, aware, albeit in a very limited sense, of its external environment in that it's speaking Chinese fluently but is it self-aware?

The same place triangle is in your definition of triangle. — creativesoul

Love triangle = romance between three people.

No triangle.

To tell you the truth, in my discussion with @Isaac I was basically on the same side as you - maintaining that the concept of triangles is essential to understanding what love triangles are but it isn't as your and my definitions clearly indicate.

However, this doesn't seem to imply that people use words without knowing definitions as Isaac belives because "love triangle" is a different kettle of fish. Although it's made up of the words "love" and "triangle" each having its own definition, it's actually describing the situation in which three people are in a romantic relationship. The concept of triangles is of no conequence at all to the meaning of love triangles. When people use the phrase "love triangle" they have to know what it means in the sense it's defined (romance involving 3 people) even though they don't know what triangles mean.

IOW he agreed that is one is doing philosophy, presenting one's ideas, is part of philosophy to face criticism. He then wonders what draws people to engage in an activity that as opposed to others where finding flaws is not such an essential part. The response to this is that he thinks people are attacking him if they critique his ideas and that he has a millenial mentality. — Coben

:ok:

Only if love triangles can be existentially dependent upon the mathematical notion of triangles and the latter not be necessary for the former. The meaning of love triangle is derived from the meaning of triangle. The latter is necessary for the very existence of the former, which is in turn necessary for any understanding thereof. — creativesoul

Read below:

A "love triangle" picks out three people involved in sexual relations — creativesoul

Where's triangle in your definition of love triangle?

Unfortunately, that negative definition of Philosophy ignores the positive contributions of Plato & Aristotle, among others. They were not just Critical (strict; demanding) and analytical (reductive; destructive), but also Complementary (completing; harmonizing) and Synthetical (cooperative; combining; holistic; constructive; creative). Philosophical progress results, not from tearing-down arguments, but from putting them back together in a stronger structure.

Creative Positive philosophy seems to be more difficult than Critical Analytical negation, which may explain why progress in constructive Wisdom is so slow & erratic, while progress in analytical Science has been so rapid. "Gotcha" can mean "I found your fault" or "I apprehend your meaning".

Ooooops! Did I just jump to the opposite opinion? :joke:


Socratic Synthesis : The Socratic method is a form of cooperative argumentative dialogue between individuals, based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to draw out ideas and underlying presuppositions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method — Gnomon

Socrates was put to death for a reason. He was, in essence, systematically demolishing all the cherished beliefs of Athenian society. In other words he was being critical rather than charitable and that didn't go down well with the Athenian populace.

First, a straight line is possible. Second, why must I even imagine a shape at all? The expression seems to get its job done without my needing to — Isaac

Sorry, got caught up in some other things. Your view on the issue is that people can use the phrase "love triangle" without accurately knowing what "triangle" means.

Firstly how do you know that people are using the phrase "love triangle" accurately without there being an accurate geometric description of the phrase "love triangle"?

Secondly, I must admit that people needn't necessarily know the geometric concept of a triangle as it appears to be dispensable insofar as the meaning of a romance involving three people is concerned. What I mean is the essence of a love triangle consists of romance and three people and if people habitually refer to such instances as "love triangles" without actually going into the math of triangles then the concept of triangles is no longer necessary to understand what love triangles are.

Where do you want to go with this?

Because you're equating two different things. The only thing that they have in common is that they are both talking about death, but they are making wholly different points.

The first is a philosophical statement based on the fact that none of us can escape death, and indeed, death is not far away, since we're mayflies compared to the universe. There is no "happily ever after", only "dead ever after", no matter who you are. So equal in that sense.

However, when exactly that happens, and what was the proximate cause, very obviously is not equal between groups, or over time and regions, for a plethora of reasons. Humans can, and should, do a lot to try to address these inequalities and also generally improve the situation for everyone. We've had a lot of success in this: life expectancy worldwide has increased a lot, and in much of the developed world (not US) the life expectancy between rich and poor is negligible. — Mijin

Yes, that's a reasonable thing to say.

1. It can't be denied that death has a preference for the weak, the poor, the underprivileged for the statistics is amply clear on that score.

2. No matter how powerful or rich a person is s/he will eventually die just like the weak and poor who do albeit much earlier. Such a person can't either use his/her power or money to escape death. If anything money and power can do it's to postpone the appointed hour of one's departure from the land of the living but for only so long.

I think you've missed the point that it's not saying all groups are going to have the same distribution of ages or types of death. Merely that everyone is going to die eventually; the end of every life story, good or bad, rich or poor, popular or pariah, is death — Mijin

I get what you mean but if that's what's meant by "death is the equalizer" then, why is the world making such a big issue of premature deaths among the underprivileged? Among the criteria of how well a country looks after its citizens are maternal mortality rates, under-5 mortality rates, longevity/life expectancy and in all these areas you find a gap between the rich & powerful and pood & weak. There's an inequality of the death rates in various sections of society and it's at most childish silliness or at worst a gross oversight to then say death is an equalizer.

thus all ideas are flawed — Hippyhead

I know that I know nothing — Socrates

Socrates' career began when the oracle at Delphi claimed that he was the wisest man alive. Once word of this got around, Socrates had a reputation to deal with. Everyone wanted to know about the Athenian philosopher. But Socrates was as stumped by the oracle's judgment as everyone else. — Google

If we are speed reading to find the Gotcha Gold asap, probably not. — Hippyhead

:up: One of my many faults :sad: but it's not because I'm purposely seeking for words/sentences/paragraphs that I can call somebody out on and cry out "Gotcha!" Exposing flaws in a position or argument is, well, part of the act of doing philosophy.

I maybe misremembering this bit I think I made a mental note of a comment made by one forum denizen (sorry can't recall his/her handle). S/he said something to the effect that philosophy is essentially a negative enterprise in the sense it's raison d'etre is crticism - by and large it's a fact finding mission fault finding mission, an activity that's designed to be destructive rather than constructive. In this regard it's Popperian in spirit - any philosophy that can't hold its own against those who think otherwise isn't worth the ink or the breath spent in espousing it. Gotcha! :smile:

Just wanted to run this by you...I recall opening a discussion of the Chinese Room argument vis-a-vis the Turing Test. If the Chinese Room can't be distinguished from a native Chinese speaker then it's passed the Turing Test with flying colors and it must be, for all intents and purposes, given the same ontological status as a native Chinese speaker. I wonder what ramifications are there for the pressing matter of consciousness? Does the Chinese Room qualify as true AI? The way you've made your case suggests that it does. Can you have a look at this aspect to the issue you raised in your OP?

I don't expect such research needs too much money for legit researchers to do it well on the side from their main research — TiredThinker

What about funding agencies wanting detailed reports on how their money is being used? There's no way you can sneak in experiments in the paranormal in there without raising a few eyebrows.

I didn't ask what it is, I asked where the sides are in my use of the term. I imagine three people, co-involved, on of whom is the subject of my expression "She's involved in a love-triangle". My interlocutor, on hearing this also imagines three people, co-involved one of whom is the subject of the expression he just heard. He may no proceed to ask relevant questions about the nature of this co-involvement, treat each actor (should he meet them) in a manner consistent with them being co-involved, etc... In other words, I've successfully achieved what I wanted to achieve by using the word 'love triangle' without any sides or geometric shapes being involved in the process at all.

Have I misused the word? Has my success been mere accident? If the 'meaning' of the word is 'a geometric shape with three sides', then what's just happened in my successful use of it absent of any of those features? — Isaac

Well, "three people" are three points and the only shape possible with three points is a triangle.

I'm not sure what you're trying to show here. I'm in no doubt that it is possible to draw three imaginary line between the actors. I'm asking about the necessity of doing so. If two people communicate effectively using the term 'love-triangle' simply on the grounds that there are three people involved, then how is it they've communicated. Are you suggesting that the 'meaning' of a word is some reified thing divorced from that which might be understood during it's use? — Isaac

I'm only showing you what a love-triangle is. Since a triangle is a geometric concept, it's best to do it with pictures and that I've done.

How do we know we are using "A", "Three", "Side", "Geometric" and "Figure" correctly in that definition? So that is incomplete. If you are going to give a complete meaning, you need also to give the meaning of "A", "Three", "Side", "Geometric" and "Figure". — Banno

The entire process will trace back to ostensive definitions.

It was around fiveish that day. The dust from the convoy swirled in the light breeze and the sun was low on the horizon. Under the shade of a tree that had seen better days stood this young man. Looked mid-20's, swarthy, about 6 foot, dressed in all-black combat fatigues, a black bandana to match concealing his short-cropped hair. He stood there with his back against us, his head turned slightly to the right. His youthful features were silhouetted against the last light of dusk, he was expressionless, calm, aloof, distant. His left arm hung lazily on his side, a fully loaded AK-47 in his right hand. I've never seen regular soldiers up that close and never have I been in their company but this young man, this nameless soldier, gave me the impression that, for the first time in my life, I had seen a real soldier, a battle-hardened one who had seen and survived actual combat. What is death to such men I wonder?

See for yourself

If given a choice between all is mind and all is not mind one would have to consider the possibility of the brain-in-a-vat scenario or Descartes' evil demon both of which cast a gigantic shadow of doubt over the material word to say nothing of the fact that these scenarios recognize the only truth that we know for certain, the reality of our minds.

You answered where the sides could be, I asked where they were. — Isaac

I only have to answer where they could be, right?

They could do. What necessitates that I imagine this when I use the term to communicate? — Isaac

I don't understand you. You asked where's the triangle and I obliged.

At the risk of getting into another "trite" side-track...where are the sides in a love-triangle? — Isaac

Each person represents a point. The shortest distance between two points is a straight line. You have your love triangle.

I don't know what religious/esoteric people think about pleasure.

I grew up in a fundamentalist cult situation and they often referred to a lot of basic pleasures as "Worldly pleasures" manmade pleasures like television and concerts counted as this. However a lot of these groups do not seem to have a problem with the pleasure derived from food and in some cases alcohol.

However non materialist philosophies might have a transcendent role for pleasure.

You can probably distinguish between different pleasures such as pleasure from music, lust, schaden freude and masochism. Utilitarian's ended up going down this route in order to have a difference between base pleasures and higher pleasures. But then this adds a value judgement on top of the initial judgement that something is a pleasure. — Andrew4Handel

It appears that when you try and fix utilitarianism by making a distinction between higher and lower pleasures you're infact saying pleasure isn't the be all and end all of life in general and of morality in particular. After all, in terms of pure pleasure the "lower" pleasures are far more intense and satisfying than "higher" pleasures.

What happens when a euthanasia thread returns from the dead...? — Banno

I have garlic and a wooden stake. — tim wood

:rofl:

That's a zombie thread tim wood, not a vampire. Jesus Christ!

You totally missed the point. Using "five red apples" to acquire five red apples shows that the user knows the correct use/meaning of "five red apples". — creativesoul

:ok:

That is a very good question.

Pick a word, any word, and present its correct meaning. Let's see where that leads. — Banno

Triangle = A three-sided geometric figure

Or perhaps that using it correctly shows that one knows what it means.

When someone goes to a store and asks for five red apples, receives five red apples, and goes on their way, it seems that that person knows how to use the words. Ask such a person what the meaning of "five red apples" is, and they may or may not know how to answer. — creativesoul

The failure to define is not concrete proof of the absence of a definition. Wittgenstein believed so according to Wikipedia.

I'm of the opinion that all semantics is just a superstructure built on top of ostensive definitions. Wittgenstein denies ostensive definitions are possible using the example "paper". Pointing to a piece of paper and saying "paper" is, as per Wittgenstein, open to multiple interpretations. Does it mean the shape, the color, the texture, the anything except paper? However, this is incorrect. I can ensure that when I say "paper" I'm not referring to the color by using differently colored paper and I can prevent someone from thinking "paper" refers to shape by using paper with all kinds of shapes. The same technique can be used to eliminate other attributes that we're not interested in until we get to the meaning we wish to convey with the word "paper".

A casual phrase, into which I might be reading too much, but I think this puts the cart before the horse, and os perhaps at the core of the difference between our approaches.

There's a bunch of posters - Harry Hindu, @TheMadFool, @Olivier5 for starters - who take the view, contra Wittgenstein and most of philosophy of language since - that meaning is made inside one's head and then transported to another head by putting it into words. That meaning precedes communication.

This leads to the reification of meaning, and all sorts of odd attitudes.

Isn't it rather that we do things with words - things that are embedded in our everyday comings and goings?

The notion of meaning is added, post hoc, as a lie-to-children that wrongly explains what we did - "Oh, I meant the other plate", and so on.

Communication by speech does not require shared meaning. Communicating by speech is just doing things with words. Meaning only enters into it when be become self-conscious of what it is we are doing.

That's not well expressed, but it'll do while I get some more coffee — Banno

It appears that Wittgenstein thought that it isn't necessary to know the meaning of a word in order to use it correctly hence, meaning is use for him. But when he says "...use it correctly..." referring to a word being used, he must, as of necessity, know the "correct meaning" of that word. How is it possible to know whether we're using the word correctly without knowing what the correct meaning is? Wittgenstein is contradicting himself by first denying the existence of a correct meaning and then employing the concept of correct meaning in order to show that we correctly use words.

We should fear death. We're the only ones who die.

We should fear death. There are good reasons to fear death.

We should fear death. No other emotion is appropriate.

We should fear death. Death is the most fearsome of all.

We shouldn't fear death. We don't die

We shouldn't fear death. There are no good reasons to fear death

We shouldn't fear death. Fear isn't appropriate for death

We shouldn't fear death. Death is not fearsome.

However, what if they are in conflict? What then? Would the more pressing preference "best" serve to satisfy our preferences with respect to how we want to act? — Aleph Numbers

It all boils down to living as long as possible - what's best for that will usually win out but not always as rampant obesity indicates.

Good point. I'm mostly referring to instances in which the act is weighed via evaluation of reasons. That being said, I'll try to better explain what I mean: someone might want to drink soda because it is sweet and they like sweet things, but they also want to avoid gaining weight. If they weigh these two preferences and decide that they think their desire to drink soda outweighs their desire to manage their weight, then their desire to drink soda has won out (or so it would seem). I'm asking if in such a situation it can be said that the person can be said to be satisfying their preferences with respect to how they want to act in those specific circumstances if they drink the soda. Or is it only a partial satisfying of preferences because they are not also managing their weight, another still existing preference? — Aleph Numbers

This raises an interesting issue. I'm reading Richard Dawkins' book The Devil's Chaplain and he makes an intriguing remark - that our phenotype (our bodies and minds), since it's shaped by environmental conditions as per evolution, is a record of what the environment was like millions of years ago. If we consider your dilemma (go for the sweets or watch your weight) against this backdrop we come to realization that our "weakness" for sweets reflects how precious for survival carbohydrate-rich food was to our ancestors whose lives were dominated by concern for, among other things, where the next meal would come from. Fast forward to the modern age and now our fondness for sweet food has become a liability as it's now abundant and has become one of the leading causes of metabolic disorders like obesity and diabetes.

What this means is that there's no conflict at all between these two desires. Wanting to drink the sweet soda is just as much about survival as the desire to watch your weight. What's happened is our minds have evolved faster than our bodies have - Richard Dawkins makes a mention of this too.